The Chinese Madhyama-ågama

and the Påli Majjhima-Nikåya

– In the Footsteps of Thich Minh Chau

Anålayo∗

Introduction
The comparative study of the discourses found in the Påli
Nikåyas and their counterparts in the Chinese Ógamas is probably
one of the most promising areas in the field of early Buddhist
studies. A significant contribution to this field emerged at the Nava
Nalanda Mahåvihåra, founded in 1951 by Bhikkhu Jagdish
Kashyap, who served as director from its inception until 1955 and
again from 1965 to 1973. This contribution was a PhD dissertation
submitted by BhikΣu Thich Minh Chau, which compared selected
discourses from the Chinese Madhyama-ågama with their
counterparts in the Påli Majjhima-nikåya. Originally published in
the early 1960s in Vietnam, it was republished in 1991 by Motilal
Banarsidass in India and thereby made readily available to an
international readership.
The present article, written in commemoration of the
centenary birth of the founder of the Nava Nalanda Mahåvihåra,
Bhikkhu Jagdish Kashyap,1 will review some of the findings of
Thich Minh Chau.
In the history of Buddhist studies, the research by Thich
Minh Chau appears to be the first comparative study between an
entire Ógama collection and its Påli counterpart. Thich Minh Chau's
study offers a detailed comparison of those discourses from the
Madhyama-ågama that, according to the listing of parallels by
Chizen Akanuma, have counterparts in the Majjhima-nikåya.2 Thich

∗
Department of Indology and Tibetology, Philipps University, 35032
Marburg, Germany.
1
As the present issue of the Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies
is dedicated to commemorating Bhikkhu Jagdish Kashyap, my study of the
bodhisattva notion, announced in the last issue, will be published only in the
next issue (2009).
2
Akanuma 1990. For a revision of Akanuma's identification of parallels
between the Madhyama-ågama and the Majjhima-nikåya cf. Anålayo 2006.
2 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

Minh Chau offers general observations on the two collections and

explores their differences and similarities in relation to central
topics of early Buddhism. He translated in their entirety a selection
of fifteen discourses from the Chinese and juxtaposed them with
their Påli equivalents. In an appendix, Thich Minh Chau offers
helpful information on the translator of the Madhyama-ågama and
the terminology the latter employed for translation.
Thich Minh Chau's groundbreaking work has become a
standard reference in scholarly circles and continues to be an
inspiration for those interested in this field. As his research was
completed in the early 1960s, with the rapid advance of Buddhist
studies and research it is inevitable that some of his conclusions are
no longer tenable. This is particularly true for his perspective on the
degree of influence exercised by the early Buddhist schools on the
texts they transmitted. Thich Minh Chau seems to perceive school
affiliation as the central source of variations found between parallel
versions of a discourse, without giving much room to the possibility
of transmission errors.
In what follows, a few instances that betray this tendency
will be taken up for examination, in an attempt to show that Thich
Minh Chau's conclusions do not stand closer scrutiny. This
examination, however, is in no way intended to diminish the
importance of Thich Minh Chau's contribution. Rather, my
observations are meant as a tribute to Thich Minh Chau's
scholarship, continuing his research by developing an alternative
perspective on the dynamics responsible for the formation of early
Buddhist literature.
The instances that will be examined are:
1. The question of the degree to which the roles of
Mahåkassapa and Såriputta in the discourses collections of the
Sarvåstivåda and Theravåda traditions reflect the influence of the
respective schools.
2. The hypothesis that descriptions of the Buddha taking a
rest in front of the monks were deliberately omitted by the
Theravådins.
3. The significance of the absence of Chinese Ógama
parallels to Påli discourses, in particular the relation of the lack of a
Chinese version of the J¥vaka-sutta to vegetarianism.
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 3

4. The unusual conclusion of the MËlapariyåya-sutta, which

reports that the monks did not delight in the discourse, and the prob-
able reasons why this conclusion is not found in the Madhyama-
ågama version.
5. The supposition that the Buddha's instruction to his son
Råhula in the Madhyama-ågama expresses decisively different
perspectives on the significance of morality held by the
Sarvåstivåda and the Theravåda traditions.
6. The question of how far the usage of the terms bodhisatta
and thera in the Påli Nikåyas and Chinese Ógamas should be
understood as expressions of sectarian concerns.

1. The Role of Mahåkassapa and Såriputta

Thich Minh Chau examines various aspects of the
Madhyama-ågama that, in his view, make it probable that this
collection was transmitted by the Sarvåstivåda tradition. Having
highlighted Mahåkassapa's status as "the first and foremost åcariya
of the Sarvåstivåda sect, while Såriputta is considered to be the first
åcariya of the Theravåda sect", Minh Chau (1991: 21) notes that the
Anupada-sutta, which praises Såriputta as the disciple who is born
from the Blessed One's mouth and who keeps rolling the wheel of
Dhamma, does not have a Chinese parallel. Thich Minh Chau then
concludes that "as the Buddha ... extolled elder Såriputta so highly,
the Sarvåstivådins might drop this sutta from their Canon or it might
be interpolated by the Theravådins in their Canon".
Yet, another Madhyama-ågama discourse also states that
Såriputta kept rolling the wheel of Dhamma.3 Even the long praise
of Såriputta's wisdom, found at the beginning of the Anupada-sutta,
recurs in similar words in several Madhyama-ågama discourses.4
Thus the Madhyama-ågama does not seem to consistently underrate
Såriputta's status.
Moreover, a discourse in the Saµyutta-nikåya reckons
Mahåkassapa as having been born from the Blessed One's mouth,
employing exactly the same terms used to describe Såriputta in the

3
MÓ 121 at T I 610b9: 舍梨子, 我所轉法輪, 汝復能轉.
4
MN 111 at MN III 25,5. MÓ 27 at T I 458b15; MÓ 28 at T I 461b10; MÓ 31
at T I 467b10; and MÓ 121 at T I 610b5.
4 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

Anupada-sutta.5 Thus this Påli discourse shows quite a positive

attitude towards Mahåkassapa. Conversely, other Påli discourses
even present a critical perspective in regard to Såriputta. One
example is the Cåtumå-sutta of the Majjhima-nikåya, which records
the Buddha explicitly voicing criticism of Såriputta.6
A particularly telling case is the Dhånañjåni-sutta and its
Madhyama-ågama parallel. Both discourses report that Såriputta
had given a teaching to the dying Brahmin Dhånañjåni due to which
the latter was reborn in a Brahmå world. The two versions differ,
however, in their evaluation of Såriputta's teaching. According to
the Madhyama-ågama version, the Buddha praised Såriputta's
wisdom and explained to the assembled monks that Såriputta had
successfully taught Dhånañjåni the path to the Brahmå world,
adding that if he had continued to teach the Brahmin further,
Dhånañjåni would have understood the Dharma.7
The Påli version, however, gives a rather different
evaluation. It points out that Såriputta had left after establishing
Dhånañjåni in the "inferior Brahmå world", even though "there still
was more to be done by him".8 This criticism is voiced altogether
three times in the Påli discourse. At first the reciters themselves
express this criticism as part of their narration of what happened.9
Then the Buddha makes the same point to the assembled monks,
when Såriputta is approaching them. Once Såriputta arrives, the
Buddha directly asks him why he had left after establishing
Dhånañjåni only in the inferior Brahmå world, even though there
was still more for him to do. Thus the present example almost gives

5
SN 16.11 at SN II 221,22: Bhagavato putto oraso mukhato jåto dhammajo
dhammanimmito dhammadåyådo, which corresponds word by word to the
praises of Såriputta in MN 111 at MN III 29,11.
6
MN 67 at MN I 459,19, a criticism also reported in its parallel EÓ 45.2 at T
II 771b6.
7
舍梨子比丘成就實慧, 此舍梨子比丘教化梵志 陀然, 為說梵 天法
MÓ 27 at T I 458b17:
來 若復上化者 速知法如法
, , .
8
MN 97 at MN II 195,20: sati uttarikaraˆ¥ye, h¥ne brahmaloke pati††håpetvå
u††håy' åsanå pakkåmi, a description repeated at MN II 195,25 and MN II
196,1.
9
For the reciters to include this criticism in their narrative description is
particularly noteworthy, since in general the narrative voice in the discourses
tends to simply relate circumstances without explicitly evaluating them.
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 5

the impression as if the Theravåda tradition had a less positive

attitude towards Såriputta than the Sarvåstivåda reciters.
The above variations reveal the lack of uniformity in the way
the discourse collections of the Sarvåstivåda and Theravåda schools
present Såriputta and Mahåkassapa. Thus the role assumed by these
two disciples in various discourses need not be an expression of the
influence of the school that transmitted the respective discourse.
That is, the esteem in which Mahåkassapa and Såriputta were
respectively held by the Sarvåstivåda and Theravåda schools may
not have had such far-reaching consequences as to lead to the
wholesale omission of discourses.

2. The Buddha's Deportment and the Dhammadåyåda-sutta

Thich Minh Chau points out that in the Madhyama-ågama
parallel to the Dhammadåyåda-sutta the Buddha takes a rest by
lying down in front of the monks, whereas the same is not recorded
in the Påli parallel.10 He also notes that a similar description is
found in another Madhyama-ågama discourse, which does not have
a Påli counterpart. From this he infers that "that the Påli compilers
were not happy over these attitudes of the Buddha and dropped" the
corresponding passage in the former case and the whole discourse
in the latter case (Minh Chau 1991: 30). In contrast, for the
Sarvåstivådins "the dignified way which the Buddha adopted in
lying down in front of the monks had nothing questionable", which
"justified the Sarvåstivådins in preserving these details".
The Dhammadåyåda-sutta has another parallel in the
Ekottarika-ågama, which also does not describe the Buddha lying
down. Instead, it agrees with the Påli version that the Buddha just
retired to his dwelling.11 Moreover, several Påli discourses do
describe the Buddha lying down to take a rest in front of the
monks.12 This makes it less probable that the absence of such a
description in the Dhammadåyåda-sutta and the lack of a Påli
parallel to the other Madhyama-ågama discourse could be an
10
MÓ 88 at T I 570b22 and MN 3 at MN I 13,34.
11
EÓ 18.3 at T II 588a25.
12
DN 33 at DN III 209,18; MN 53 at MN I 354,25; SN 35.202 at SN IV 184,8;
and AN 10.67 at AN V 123,1. Minh Chau (1991: 30) seems to have been
aware of such instances, as he notes that "the Theravådins referred to these
details very rarely", thus he did not base his argument on assuming a total
absence of such descriptions in Påli discourses.
6 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

expression of a wish of the compilers of the Påli canon to erase such

descriptions.

3. Vegetarianism and the J¥vaka-sutta

The hypothesis that certain discourses were dropped under
the pressure of sectarian influence comes up again in relation to the
J¥vaka-sutta. Minh Chau (1991: 31-2) reasons that "the dropping
from all the Chinese Ógamas of the Påli sutta N o 55, J¥vakasutta, in
which the Buddha was reported to allow the monks to take three
kinds of meat, confirms the Sarvåstivåda's attitude against meat-
eating". "This difference in attitude towards meat-eating in the two
versions serves to explain why now-a-days meat-eating is allowed
for the monks of countries following the Theravåda tradition, while
the monks of such countries as China, Korea, Vietnam observe
vegetarianism faithfully".
Yet, to take the absence of a parallel to the J¥vaka-sutta to be
an expression of Sarvåstivåda vegetarianism would not fit too well
with the Sarvåstivåda Vinaya, which mentions the three instances
when meat should not be consumed in the same way as the J¥vaka-
sutta; both thereby indicating that, apart from the stipulated
conditions, meat-eating is allowable.13 Had vegetarianism in the
Sarvåstivåda tradition been strong enough to lead to a suppression
of the J¥vaka-sutta, one would expect it to have exerted its influence
also on the Vinaya.
In fact, the early texts of the different Buddhist schools seem
to be in general agreement that meat-eating is allowable. The only
recorded instance of vegetarianism being advocated appears to
come from the schismatic Devadatta.14 According to Ruegg (1980:
236-7), it seems probable that "vegetarianism became established in
Buddhism ... in close connection with ... the tathågatagarbha
doctrine", which would make it unlikely that the idea of

13
T 1435 at T XXIII 190b9 and T XXIII 264c27; corresponding to the
description in MN 55 at MN I 369,4. Moreover, T 1435 at T XXIII 91b21
includes meat and fish in a listing of allowable food, and T 1435 at T XXIII
190b14 agrees with Vin I 238,8 on reckoning meat consumption apart from
the prohibited three instances as "pure", 三種 淨 , tiko†iparisuddha; cf. also
Prasad (1979); Schmithausen (2005: 188-9) and Waldschmidt (1967: 104-5).
14
For a survey of the points raised by Devadatta according to the different
Vinayas cf. Bareau (1991: 108) and Mukherjee (1966: 76-77).
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 7

vegetarianism could have exerted a determining influence on the

compilation of the Ógama collections.
Independent of the exact time at which vegetarianism
became a tenet of general importance in the history of Buddhism,
the absence of a parallel to the J¥vaka-sutta in the Chinese Ógamas
would not be related to such issues, as among Sanskrit fragments of
the (MËla-) sarvåstivåda D¥rgha-ågama a counterpart to the J¥vaka-
sutta has been found. 15 These fragments have preserved the passage
on the conditions for the consumption of meat that Thich Minh
Chau assumes to be the reason for the absence of a version of this
discourse in the Sarvåstivåda tradition.16
Thus the absence of a parallel to the J¥vaka-sutta among the
discourses found in the Chinese Ógamas does not seem be related to
ideological issues, but rather appears to be an outcome of the
circumstance that the four Ógamas belong to different schools. The
Madhyama-ågama collection preserved in Chinese does not have a
parallel to the J¥vaka-sutta because the Sarvåstivådins probably had
a version of this discourse in their D¥rgha-ågama collection, a
collection not preserved in Chinese. The D¥rgha-ågama preserved
in Chinese translation is generally held to belong to the
Dharmaguptaka tradition.17 This collection does not include a
version of the J¥vaka-sutta, quite possibly because this discourse
was found in another Ógama of the Dharmaguptaka tradition,
perhaps in its Madhyama-ågama, similar to the placing given to this
discourse in the Theravåda tradition.
The J¥vaka-sutta is not the only such instance of Påli
discourses that are without a counterpart in the Chinese Ógamas.

15
Cf. the survey in Hartmann (2004: 127) and the uddåna in Hartmann (2002:
138); cf. also fragment SHT VI 1525 V1-R2, which according to the
identification in SHT IX p. 439 belongs to a version of the J¥vaka-sutta.
16
According to a personal communication from L.S. Cousins, based on a
preliminary transcript prepared by L.S. Cousins and Somadeva Vasudeva of
the relevant fragment from the newly discovered D¥rgha-ågama collection,
this fragment preserves parts of a description of the three instances when the
consumption of meat is not appropriate, namely when it is seen, heard or can
be inferred that the animal has been killed for the sake of providing food for
the monk.
17
Bareau (1966: 50); Brough (2001: 50); Demiéville (1951: 252-253);
Enomoto 1986: 25; Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 97); Prasad (1993: 50);
Waldschmidt (1980: 136); and Yin-shun (1983: 720).
8 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

Even in the same chapter of the Majjhima-nikåya, the

Gahapativagga, several more such cases can be found.
One such case is the Apaˆˆaka-sutta, parts of which have
similarly been preserved in Sanskrit fragments.18 Another example
is the Kukkuravatika-sutta, which has no known parallel either in
the Chinese Ógamas or in Sanskrit fragments. Nevertheless, an
exposition that seems to stem from a version of this discourse can
be found in a sËtra quotation preserved in Íamathadeva's
commentary on the Abhidharmakoßa, extant in Tibetan.19 Moreover,
the Sa∫g¥tiparyåya's comment on the four types of action treated in
the Kukkuravatika-sutta explicitly refers to the protagonist of this
discourse, Puˆˆa, who was observing the ascetic practice of
behaving like a cow.20 There can be little doubt that this passage has
a version of the Kukkuravatika-sutta in mind.
A last example, still from the same Gahapati-vagga of the
Majjhima-nikåya, is the Abhayaråjakumåra-sutta, which has no
known parallel either in the Chinese Ógamas or in Śamathadeva's
commentary. Nevertheless, parts of this discourse have been
preserved in a sËtra quotation in the Mahåprajñåpåramitå-
(upadeßa)-ßåstra.21
Thus the Gahapati-vagga of the Majjhima-nikåya has a
number of discourses that are without counterpart in the Chinese
Ógamas, yet Sanskrit fragments or sËtra quotations preserved in

18
MN 60 at MN I 400-413 and the Sanskrit fragments SHT III 966 (identified
in SHT VII p. 272); SHT IV 165 folio 32 and folio 37 (identified in SHT VI
p. 212); SHT VI 1261; SHT VI 1579; Hoernle frag. 149/add. 135 and frag.
bleu 190 of the Pelliot collection in Hartmann (1991: 62-64); frag. Or.
15003/44 from the Hoernle collection in Wille (2006: 79). The same is the
case for the Kandaraka-sutta, MN 51 at MN I 339-349, though here it is
uncertain if the relevant Sanskrit fragments are parallels to MN 51 or to one
of the other Påli discourses that expound the same theme; cf. SHT I 422; SHT
III 879; SHT III 996; SHT IV 165 folio 27; SHT V 1153; and SHT V 1359.
Other Påli discourses that treat the same topic are DN 33 at DN III 232,21;
MN 60 at MN I 411,28; MN 94 at MN II 159,5; and AN 4.198 at AN II
205,23.
19
Q mngon pa tu 193b8, translated in Skilling (1979).
20
T 1536 at T XXVI 396a8 notes that the Buddha gave this exposition of the
four types of action to 圓滿 , the observer of the cow conduct, , 牛戒
corresponding to Puˆˆo govatiko mentioned in MN 57 at MN I 387,9.
21
T 1509 at T XXV 321b15-25. On an as yet unpublished Sanskrit fragment
parallel cf. Hartmann (1992: 28).
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 9

Chinese or Tibetan sources document the existence of parallel

versions. This goes to show that the absence of a discourse from the
Ógamas may well be due to differences in the distribution of
discourses among the four discourse collections transmitted by
various Buddhist schools. Since the four Ógamas translated into
Chinese stem from different schools, such variations in distribution
have affected the range of discourses preserved in Chinese
translation.

4. The Conclusion of the MËlapariyåya-sutta

In relation to the unusual concluding section of the
MËlapariyåya-sutta, according to which the monks did not delight
in the Buddha's exposition, Minh Chau (1991: 204) notes that the
Madhyama-ågama discourse identified by Chizen Akanuma as the
parallel version instead employs the standard conclusion to a
discourse, namely, that the monks were delighted with the Buddha's
exposition.22 Thich Minh Chau then reasons that the negation na
"might have been used to earmark its [the discourse's] expunging
from the Påli Tipi†aka, but the later Påli compilers forgot to do so".
Yet, that the monks did not delight in the discourse is also recorded
in an Ekottarika-ågama parallel to the MËlapariyåya-sutta.23
This rather unusual ending was also known to the Påli
commentators, who provide an explanation for it. They report that
the Buddha had preached this discourse to humble the pride of a
group of five-hundred monks.24 The monks did not delight in the
discourse, the commentary explains, because they were unable to
understand what the Buddha had taught them. On this explanation,
their unusual reaction could indeed have been part of the discourse
right from its outset.25

22
MÓ 106 at T I 596c14: 彼諸比丘聞佛所說, 歡喜奉行.
23
EÓ 44.6 at T II 766b15: "at that time, the monks did not accept that teaching
[given to them by the Buddha]", 是時諸比丘不受其教 .
24
Ps I 56, cf. also Jå 245 at Jå II 260. The commentary continues by indicating
that on a later occasion the same group of monks received a short discourse
by the Buddha, at the conclusion of which all of them became arahants, cf.
AN 3.123 at AN I 276,23. EÓ 44.6 at T II 766b18 continues with an
additional instruction to the monks on practising meditation in seclusion, as a
result of which the monks do delight in what the Buddha has told them.
25
According to an alternative interpretation suggested by Bodhi (1992: 20),
Ñåˆananda (2005: 286) and Thanissaro (2002: 156), the monks might also
10 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

The Påli editions of the MËlapariyåya-sutta do in fact vary,

as according to the PTS edition the monks did delight in the
exposition given by the Buddha on this occasion. 26 This difference
between texts within the Theravåda tradition suggests an
explanation that might also apply to the Madhyama-ågama version,
in that the natural levelling tendency of oral transmission or else the
influence of editors (in the case of the PTS edition) or translators (in
the case of the Madhyama-ågama version) led to a 'correction' of
the concluding section in accordance with the standard phrase
employed at the end of all other discourses: the monks delighted in
what the Buddha said. That is, the lack of delight of the monks as
the more unusual reading, lectio difficilior, is likely to be the more
original version and there seems to be no need to assume that it
expresses a wish to erase the discourse from the Majjhima-nikåya
collection.

5. The Instruction to Råhula

In relation to the Ambala††hikåråhulovåda-sutta, Minh Chau
(1991: 34) notes that the instructions given by the Buddha to his son
Råhula in the Chinese version differ from its Påli counterpart. The
Madhyama-ågama instructions refer to a bodily action that is "pure"
but at the same time is unwholesome and results in suffering, while
a bodily action that is "not pure" is wholesome and does not result
in suffering.27 The corresponding Påli passage does not envisage
that a bodily action could be simultaneously pure and
unwholesome, but simply describes an unwholesome bodily deed as
one that results in affliction. 28
In an attempt to make sense of the Madhyama-ågama
passage, Thich Minh Chau interprets the expression "pure" (淨) to

have been unable to delight in this penetrative discourse because they did
understand its thorough undermining of various concepts to which they were
still attached.
26
While the PTS edition at MN I 6,24 reports that the monks delighted,
according to Be-MN I 8,19, Ce-MN I 18,9 and Se-MN I 11,6 they did not
delight in the exposition given by the Buddha.
27
MÓ 14 at T I 436c11 and c14: 彼身業淨 ... 不善與苦果受於苦報 and 彼身業不淨 ...
善與樂果受於樂報 .
28
MN 61 at MN I 415,29: akusalaµ idaµ kåyakammaµ dukkhudrayaµ
dukkhavipåkaµ.
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 11

mean "permissible" and comments that "by the term permissible,

the Chinese means that it is approved by the Scriptures or it does
not infringe the monastic rules". He then concludes that "in the
Sarvåstivåda definition there is wide scope for a liberal attitude
towards the interpretation of the monastic regulations. We might
find ... in this difference an explanation of the rigid orthodoxy of the
Theravåda monks who up to now-a-days would frown on any
attempt to relax or to interpret differently the established rules,
while the Sarvåstivåda and its offshoot schools adopted a more or
less liberal attitude toward the observance of monastic rules".
A problem with applying Thich Minh Chau's interpretation,
however, is that according to the instruction for a past bodily action
in the Madhyama-ågama discourse a "permissible" (淨) bodily deed
should be confessed, while a "not permissible" (不淨) bodily deed
leads to the arising of joy.29 This makes little sense, since for a
"permissible" bodily deed there would be no need for confession. In
fact, the idea to give precedence to other's welfare over the
requirements of moral conduct belongs to a later phase of Buddhist
thought and does not seem to be reflected in the early discourses.
In addition to the Madhyama-ågama and Majjhima-nikåya
versions, the instructions to Råhula can be found in several other
texts: in the (MËla-)Sarvåstivada Vinayavibha∫ga, preserved in
Chinese and Tibetan;30 in a sËtra quotation in the Vyåkhyåyukti-†¥kå,
preserved in Tibetan;31 and in a paraphrase in the ÍråvakabhËmi.32
All of these parallels agree with the Påli discourse that the
instructions are to refrain from a bodily deed that is harmful and
unwholesome, without envisaging that such a deed could be
reckoned as pure.
Thus the most straightforward explanation of this part of the
Madhyama-ågama version would be to assume the occurrence of a
translation error. Such an error could have happened due to

29
MÓ 14 at T I 436c27.
30
T 1442 at T XXIII 761a11: 是不善事 是苦惡業 能於未來感苦異熟
, , . Q 'dul ba je
201a6: bdag dang gzhan la gnod par 'gyur ba mi dge ba sdug bsngal 'byung
ba rnam par smin pa sdug bsngal ba.
31
Q sems tsam i 71a5: gnod pa dang ldan pa mi dge ba sdug bsngal 'byung ba
dang.
32
T 1579 at T XXX 405b5: 自損及以損他是不善 ; Shukla (1973: 55,16):
vyåbhådhikaµ ... åtmano vå parasya vå akußalaµ.
12 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

misinterpreting a sandhi in the Indic original, assuming that a

particular word has, or else does not have, the negative prefix a-.
This type of error does, in fact, occur in another Madhyama-
ågama discourse, which describes the behaviour of a monk who is
investigated for some misdeed. According to the Madhyama-ågama
description, this monk might either display anger and say that he
wants to act in accordance with the wishes of the community that
investigates him; or else he might not display anger and say that he
does not want to act in accordance with the wishes of the
community. 33 According to the Påli parallel, however, the monk
who displays anger is also unwilling to act in accordance with the
wishes of the community; while the one who does not display anger
wants to act in accordance with the wishes of the community.34 This
is certainly the more logical presentation and in this case, too, the
mistaking of a sandhi by the translator(s) of the Madhyama-ågama
appears to be the most probable reason for the wording in the
Chinese discourse. 35 Thus, rather than reflecting decisively different
perspectives on the significance of morality held by the
Sarvåstivåda and the Theravåda traditions, the present Madhyama-
ågama passage may simply be the result of a translation error.

6. The Terms Bodhisatta and Thera

Thich Minh Chau notes that discourses in the Madhyama-
agama do not use the term bodhisatta when referring to the Buddha
before his awakening, while corresponding passages in Påli
discourses regularly have the expression "being a bodhisattva",
bodhisattass' eva sato.36
Minh Chau (1991: 34) then suggests that "when the doctrine
of [the] Bodhisatta found currency among some Mahåyånic schools
and threatened to supersede the supremacy of arahantship, the
Theravåda compilers introduced the term Bodhisatta into their

33
MÓ 194 at T I 748b28 and c18: 瞋恚憎嫉, 發怒廣惡 ... 作如是說, 我今
當作令眾歡喜而可意 , and 不瞋恚憎嫉 發怒廣惡 ... 不如是說, 我今當作
,
令眾歡喜而可意 .
34
MN 65 at MN I 442,31 and 443,10.
35
Karashima (1992: 263) notes the occurrence of this type of error in
DharmarakΣa's translation of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka-sËtra, thereby
confirming that such mistakes were not uncommon.
36
For example in MN 19 at MN I 114,25; cf. also Kajiyama (1982: 257).
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 13

pi†akas and gave it the special meaning of the Buddha before his
enlightenment and thus discarded any other meaning attributed to it
by the Mahåyånists".
Thich Minh Chau's suggestion that the expression bodhisatta
could be a later introduction by the Theravåda tradition does not
receive support from the other Ógamas, since the corresponding
term 菩薩 recurs as a referent to the Buddha's pre-awakening
experiences in discourses found in the D¥rgha-ågama and in the
Ekottarika-ågama. 37 Sanskrit fragments of the Mahåvadåna-sËtra
similarly use the term bodhisattva to refer to the pre-awakening
experiences of the Buddha Vipass¥; as do Sanskrit fragments of the
MahåparinirvåˆasËtra in relation to the pre-awakening experiences
of Buddha Gotama.38
Sanskrit fragments of the Nagara-sËtra, however, do not use
the term bodhisattva in a context where the Buddha refers to his
pre-awakening experiences.39 This suggests the absence of 菩薩 or
bodhisattva as a referent to the Buddha before his awakening to be a
peculiarity of some reciter traditions, perhaps more particularly of
reciters within the Sarvåstivåda tradition(s). 40

37
DÓ 3 at T I 31b20; EÓ 24.2 at T II 616b9; EÓ 31.1 at T II 665b23; EÓ 38.4
at T II 718a14; EÓ 40.3 at T II 739a12 and EÓ 44.7 at T II 766c26, instances
that comprise also his experiences in former lives, as is also the case for the
usage of the term bodhisatta in Påli discourses, cf. e.g. MN 123 at MN III
119,20. The above listing does not include an occurrence in SÓ 604 at T II
166c23, as this section of the Saµyukta-ågama collection is a later text that
was apparently inserted by mistake into the collection.
38
Fragment 420d R5 in Waldschmidt (1953: 45), cf. also Fukita (2003: 53).
Fragment S 360 folio 176 R3 in Waldschmidt (1950: 20).
39
Fragment Pelliot Rouge 14 (7) V3 in Bongard-Levin (1996: 38), Lévi (1910:
438) and Tripå†h¥ (1962: 95), translated in Cooper (1980: 55). The
corresponding Påli passage, SN 12.65 at SN II 104,8, does employ the term
bodhisatta. The Chinese parallel SÓ 287 at T II 80b25 differs from both in as
much as it explicitly relates this former unawakened time to a previous life of
the Buddha, 宿命 , cf. also Lamotte (1980: 122).
40
Minh Chau (1991: 34 note 1) records an alternative opinion by Bapat that the
absence of the term bodhisattva in some texts could be a deliberate omission
in order "to show greater respect to the Buddha by applying that term [i.e.
'Buddha'] even to the period of his life before his enlightenment". In fact, MÓ
32 at T I 469c24 refers to the Buddha in a previous life with the expression
世尊 , an expression that elsewhere forms the counterpart to bhagavant. The
parallel MN 123 at MN III 119,20 instead uses the term bodhisatta. Thus the
14 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

Besides, to assume that the Theravåda compilers felt a need

to oppose the development of the bodhisattva ideal may not fully
take into account that the Theravåda concept of a bodhisattva
developed along lines not too different from Mahåyåna ideas. The
Påli commentaries distinguish between the mahåbodhisatta (the
Buddha before his awakening), a paccekabodhisatta and a
såvakabodhisatta. 41 The first of these, a bodhisattva on his path to
future Buddhahood, has played and still plays a considerable role
throughout Theravåda history, being an ideal followed by kings,
monks and laity.42 Even in present day Sri Lanka some of the most
highly respected and influential monks, like the late Balangoda
Ónanda Maitreya and Nauyane Ariyadhamma, are well known for
having pledged themselves to follow the bodhisattva path.
As Skilling (2004: 143) explains, "available scriptures of the
eighteen schools allow all three options: it is one's own decision
whether [to] become an Arhat, a Pratyekabuddha, or a Buddha, and
to practice accordingly. That is, the eighteen or four schools
embrace the three yånas. At an uncertain point, let us say in the first
century BCE, groups of monks, nuns and lay-followers began to
devote themselves exclusively to the Bodhisattvayåna. Eventually
some of them exalted this yåna to the point of asserting that
everyone else should do the same. For them the Bodhisattvayåna
became the Great Vehicle, the Mahåyåna. This ... was the origin of
the Mahåyåna as a movement".
Hence, the bodhisattva ideal as such is certainly not a
prerogative of the particular Buddhist schools. Only the positing of
this ideal as the only apposite form of aspiration could be
considered as a distinctly Mahåyåna characteristic. Though
Theravådins might well have objected to the assumption that
everyone should follow the path of the bodhisattva, there would
have been little reason for them to oppose the notion as such.
Several Theravåda texts are in fact closely related to the bodhisattva
ideal, such as the Buddhavaµsa's account of how the bodhisattva
who was to become Gotama Buddha received predictions of his
future Buddhahood from earlier Buddhas; or the Cariyapi†aka's
detailed treatment of the perfections, påram¥. In the case of the

absence of references to bodhisattva in some texts of the Sarvåstivåda

tradition could indeed be due to reasons similar to those suggested by Bapat.
41
Th-a I 9; cf. also Endo (2002: 236).
42
Rahula (1971: 69); Ratnayaka (1985: 94-96) and Samuels (1997: 404-407).
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 15

Buddhåpadåna, Bechert (1992: 102) even goes so far as to speak of

it as a "full-fledged Mahåyåna text". Thus occurrences of the term
bodhisatta in Påli discourses do not seem to be an expression of
opposition to the bodhisattva ideal in Theravåda circles.
Just as occurrences of the term bodhisatta in the Påli
Nikåyas need not express Theravådin influence, similarly, the use of
the term thera in the Chinese Ógamas need not be expressive of an
anti-Theravåda bias. Minh Chau (1991: 33) quotes Anesaki (1901:
897) to the effect that the term thera "in the Chinese Ógamas ...
occurs, as far as I know, only thrice – the title Óyushman being used
otherwise. Can we conclude that the Chinese version is derived
from traditions dating from an age in the history of Buddhism when
the authority of Theras was not yet solidified, or it descended from a
school antagonistic to the authority of the orthodox Theras?" This
suggestion by Anesaki seems to be incorrect, as a counterpart to
thera can be found in numerous Ógama discourses, which use the
expression 長老, literally "elder", often additionally qualified as 上尊,
"senior".43

Conclusion
In regard to the points discussed above, it needs to be kept in
mind that at the time when Thich Minh Chau was undertaking his
research the study of the nature and dynamics of oral tradition was
still in its beginnings.44 Nowadays, awareness of the impact of
orality on the actual shape of the discourses found in the Påli
Nikåyas and the Chinese Ógamas is constantly growing and it is
becoming increasingly clear that a good number of variations are
best understood in the light of the dynamics and vicissitudes of oral
transmission.45 Thus when Minh Chau (1991: 75) contrasts an
"unmistakenly common source of the Chinese and the Påli versions"
43
Occurrences in the Madhyama-ågama alone are: MÓ 22 at T I 450a21; MÓ
26 at T I 455c7; MÓ 33 at T I 471c29; MÓ 38 at T I 481a9; MÓ 39 at T I
481b16; MÓ 82 at T I 557c25; MÓ 83 at T I 559b27 (in the discourse's title);
MÓ 84 at T I 560b25; MÓ 88 at T I 569c26; MÓ 116 at T I 606c25; MÓ 142
at T I 649b20; and MÓ 196 at T I 754b16.
44
For a study of oral features of Påli discourses in more detail than possible
within the context of the present article cf. Anålayo 2007.
45
As Nattier 2003: 52 explains, "to assume a 'creative individual author' as the
driving force behind interpolations in Buddhist scripture is to import a model
that is foreign to most of the literary processes that have shaped the
production of Indian religious texts".
16 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

to "differences in the details ... due either to the compilers' choice or

to the characteristics of the schools they represented", it becomes
clear that for him variations are necessarily the outcome of
conscious manipulation by editors and compilers, influenced by the
ideas and dogmas of the particular Buddhist school to which they
belong. Therefore the oral nature of the material with which he was
working was naturally not at the forefront of his attention.
Moreover, the digitalisation of the canonical texts facilitates
checking particular passages or expressions to a considerable
degree. With the computer technology nowadays at our disposal, it
is a matter of seconds to test certain hypotheses that in earlier days
could only be evaluated by extensive and time-consuming research.
In regard to conclusions drawn based on the absence of
parallel versions, Banerjee (1957: 23) was still under the impression
that "the four Ógamas ... almost all belong to the Sarvåstivåda or the
VaibhåΣika school" and even in a relatively recent article Prasad
(1993: 45) comments that "it is commonly held that the Chinese
Ógamas belong to the Sarvåstivåda tradition", an opinion that he
then shows to be incorrect. Minh Chau (1991: 18) expresses his
reservations about the suggestion made by Banerjee, indicating that
he does not feel "so optimistic as to affirm that all the 4 Ógamas
belong to the Sarvåstivåda school". Yet, lacking clear awareness of
the differences in school affiliation among the four Ógamas, it is
perhaps no surprise that he drew conclusions based on the absence
of a Chinese Ógama parallel to a particular Påli discourse.
In sum, then, my criticism mainly reflects the shift of
perspective that has resulted from the progress of Buddhist studies
and computer technology made during the nearly five decades that
have gone by since Thich Minh Chau did his research. The overall
perspective on the two collections provided by him is nevertheless
of substantial importance. His work thus remains a major reference
and an inspiration for all those engaged in this fascinating field in
early Buddhist studies: comparative studies between discourses
from the Påli Nikåyas and the Chinese Ógamas, with their
considerable potential to reveal the common core and the traces of
change that affected the legacy of early Buddhist literature.

Abbreviations:
AN A∫guttara-nikåya
e
B Burmese edition
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 17

Ce Ceylonese edition
DÓ D¥rgha-ågama (T 1)
DN D¥gha-nikåya
EÓ Ekottarika-ågama (T 125)
MÓ Madhyama-ågama (T 26)
MN Majjhima-nikåya
Q Peking edition
SÓ Saµyukta-ågama (T 99)
SÓ2 'other' Saµyukta-ågama (T 100)
Se Siamese edition
SHT Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden46
SN Saµyutta-nikåya
T TaishØ
Th-a Theragåthå-a††hakathå
Vin Vinaya
Vism Visuddhimagga

Acknowledgement:
I am indebted to Bhikkhu Bodhi for comments on an earlier draft of
this article.

Bibliography:
Akanuma, Chizen 1990 (1929): The Comparative Catalogue of
Chinese Ógamas & Påli Nikåyas, Delhi: Sri Satguru.
Anålayo & Rod Bucknell 2006: "Correspondence Table for
Parallels to the Discourses of the Majjhima Nikåya: Toward
a Revision of Akanuma's Comparative Catalogue", in
Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka, vol. 4
pp. 215-243.
Anålayo 2007: "Oral Dimensions of Påli Discourses: Pericopes,
other Mnemonic Techniques, and the Oral Performance
46
Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, Germany, in (by now) 9 volumes from
1965 to 2004, ed. by Waldschmidt et al.; unless otherwise specified,
references are to volume of the publication and number of the fragment.
18 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

Context", in Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies, vol. 3

pp. 6-33.
Anesaki, Masaharu 1901: "Correspondence - Chinese Ógamas and
Påli Nikåyas", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp.
895-900.
Banerjee, Anukul Chandra 1957: Sarvåstivåda Literature, Calcutta:
Oriental Press.
Bareau, André 1966: "L'Origine du D¥rgha-ågama Traduit en
Chinois par Buddhayaßas", in Essays Offered to G.H. Luce,
B. Shin et al. (ed.), Switzerland, Ascona: Artibus Asiae, pp.
49-58.
Bareau, André 1991: "Les Agissements de Devadatta selon les
Chapitres Relatifs au Schisme dans les Divers
Vinayapi†aka", in Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême
Orient, vol. 78 pp. 87-132.
Bechert, Heinz 1992: "Buddha-field and Transfer of Merit in a
Theravåda Source", in Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 35 pp. 95-
108.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu 1992 (1980): The Discourse on the Root of
Existence, The MËlapariyåya Sutta and its Commentaries,
Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.
Bongard-Levin, Grigorij Maksimovic et al. 1996: "The Nagaropama
sËtra: An Apotropaic Text from the Saµyuktågama", in
Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon, Folge 3,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 7-103.
Brough, John 2001 (1962): The Gåndhår¥ Dharmapada, Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
Cooper, John M. 1980: "A Fragment of the NidånasËtra", in Pali
Buddhist Review, London, vol. 5 no. 3 pp. 53-58.
Demiéville, Paul 1951: "A propos du Concile de Vaißål¥", in T'oung
Pao, vol. 40 pp. 239-296.
Endo, Toshiichi 2002 (1997): Buddha in Theravåda Buddhism, A
Study of the Concept of Buddha in the Pali Commentaries,
Sri Lanka, Dehiwela: Buddhist Cultural Centre.
Enomoto, Fumio 1986: "On the Formation of the Original Texts of
the Chinese Ógamas", in Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 3 pp.
19-30.
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 19

Fukita, Takamichi 2003: The MahåvadånasËtra, Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 1991: Untersuchungen zum D¥rghågama der
Sarvåstivådins, unpubl. habilitation thesis, Göttingen:
Georg-August-Universität.
Hartmann, J.U. and Wille, Klaus 1992: "Die nordturkestanischen
Sanskrit-Handschriften der Sammlung Hoernle", in Sanskrit-
Texte aus dem Buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen
und Neueditionen, Zweite Folge, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, pp. 9-63.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 2002: "Further Remarks on the New
Manuscript of the D¥rghågama," in Journal of the
International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, vol. 5
pp. 133-150.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 2004: "Contents and Structure of the
D¥rghågama of the (MËla-)Sarvåstivådins" in Annual Report
of the International Research Institute for Advanced
Buddhology at Soka University, vol. 7 pp. 119-137.
Kajiyama, Yuichi 1982: "On the Meanings of the Words
Bodhisattva and Mahåsattva in Prajñåpåramitå Literature",
in Indological and Buddhist Studies, L.A. Hercus (et al. ed.),
Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, pp. 253-270.
Karashima, Seishi 1992: The Textual Study of the Chinese Versions
of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, Tokyo: Sankibo Press.
Lamotte, Étienne 1980: "Conditioned Co-production and Supreme
Enlightenment", in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola
Rahula, S. Balasooriya et al. (ed.), London: Fraser, pp. 118-
132.
Lévi, Sylvain 1910: "Documents de l'Asie centrale, (Mission
Pelliot), Textes Sanscrits de Touen-Houang", in Journal
Asiatique, pp. 433-456.
Lü, Cheng 1963: "Ógama", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, G.P.
Malalasekera (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist
Affairs, vol. 1 no. 2 pp. 241-244.
Mayeda [=Maeda], Egaku 1985: "Japanese Studies on the Schools
of the Chinese Ógamas", in Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von
Werken der H¥nayåna-Literatur, Erster Teil, H. Bechert
20 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9, 2008

(ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, vol. 1 pp. 94-

103.
Minh Chau, Thich, 1991. The Chinese Madhyama Ógama and the
Påli Majjhima Nikåya, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Mukherjee, Biswadeb 1966: Die Überlieferung von Devadatta dem
Widersacher des Buddha in den Kanonischen Schriften,
München: Kitzinger.
Ñåˆananda, Bhikkhu 2005: Nibbåna - the Mind Stilled, Sri Lanka:
Dharma Grantha Mudrana Bhåraya, vol. 3.
Nattier, Jan 2003: A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path
according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparip®cchå),
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Prasad, Chandra Shekhar 1979: "Meat-eating and the Rule of
Tiko†iparisuddha", in Studies in Pali and Buddhism, A.K.
Narain (ed.), Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 289-
295.
Prasad, Chandra Shekhar 1993: "The Chinese Ógamas vis-à-vis the
Sarvåstivåda Tradition", in Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 10
pp. 45-56.
Rahula, Walpola 1971: "L'idéal du Bodhisattva dans le Theravåda et
le Mahåyåna", in Journal Asiatique, pp. 63-70.
Ratnayaka, Shanta 1985: "The Bodhisattva ideal of the Theravåda",
in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 85-110.
Ruegg, David Seyfort 1980: "Ahiµså and Vegetarianism in the
History of Buddhism", in Buddhist Studies in Honour of
Walpola Rahula, S. Balasooriya et al. (ed.), London: Fraser
pp. 234-241.
Samuels, Jeffrey 1997:"The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravåda
Buddhist Theory and Practice: A reevaluation of the
Bodhisattva-Śråvaka Opposition", in Philosophy East and
West, vol. 47 no. 3 pp. 399-415.
Schmithausen, Lambert 2005: "Meat-eating and nature: Buddhist
perspectives", in Supplement to the Bulletin of the Research
Institute of Bukkyo University, pp. 183-201.
Shukla, Karunesha 1973: ÍråvakabhËmi of Ócårya Asa∫ga, Patna:
K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
 The Chinese Madhyama-ågama and the Påli Majjhima-nikåya ... 21

Skilling, Peter 1979: "Discourse on the Four Kinds of Karma", in

The Journal of Religious Studies, Punjabi University Patiala,
vol. 7 no. 1 pp. 86-91.
Skilling, Peter 2004: "Mahåyåna and Bodhisattva: An essay towards
historical understanding", in Photisatawa barami kap
sangkhom thai nai sahatsawat mai [Bodhisattvaparami and
Thai Society in the New Millenium], P. Limpanusorn et al.
(ed.), Bangkok: Thammasat University Press, pp. 140-156.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu 2002: Handful of Leaves, An Anthology, Santa
Cruz: Sati Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 1.
Tripå†h¥, Chandrabhål 1962: Fünfundzwanzig SËtras des Nidåna-
saµyukta, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Waldschmidt, Ernst 1950: Das MahåparinirvåˆasËtra, Berlin: Aka-
demie Verlag, vol. 1.
Waldschmidt, Ernst 1953: Das Mahåvadånasutra, ein Kanonischer
Text über die sieben letzten Buddhas, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, vol. 1.
Waldschmidt, Ernst 1967: "Beiträge zur Textgeschichte des
MahåparinirvåˆasËtra", in Von Ceylon bis Turfan,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 80-119; orig.
publ. 1939 in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen, pp. 55-94.
Waldschmidt, Ernst 1980: "Central Asian SËtra Fragments and their
Relation to the Chinese Ógamas", in The Language of the
Earliest Buddhist Tradition, H. Bechert (ed.), Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 136-174.
Wille, Klaus 2006: "The Sanskrit Fragments Or. 15003 in the
Hoernle Collection", in Buddhist Manuscripts from Central
Asia, The British Library Sanskrit Fragments, S. Karashima
et al. (ed.), Tokyo: Soka University, vol. 1 pp. 65-153.
Yin-shun 1983 (1962): 原始佛教聖典之集成 [The Compilation of the
Early Buddhist Canon], Taipei: 正聞出版社.